Collectivism - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By ingliz
#1504156
The strange thing is how can an individualistic society ever transform itself into a collectivist society. If individualism is such a better way to live why do all these atoms of individual freedom coalesce into this pudding of tyranny? There must be some basic psychological something lacking in the self interested 'aloneness' of individualism.
Last edited by ingliz on 12 Apr 2008 20:23, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By pikachu
#1504163
You really think Stalin's paranoid Russia and Hitler's Germany were that different?

As states, they were sure as hell different. They were not any more like each other than they were like liberal states.

How about you actually investigate the structure and actions of those countries, as opposed to just swallowing the liberal propaganda about them? Start with Wikipedia at least.
By Manuel
#1504166
ou really think Stalin's paranoid Russia and Hitler's Germany were that different?


What about Cuba's Castro and Brazil's Vargas?

Or Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh and Portugal's Salazar?

Or China's Mao to Spain's Franco?

Kim Jong Il to Putin?
User avatar
By Nets
#1504167
M4NU, I think some of the examples you posted contrast Authoritarian with Totalitarian regimes. Hitler and Stalin were both Totalitarian, not Authoritarian, so I don't see the relevance.
User avatar
By pikachu
#1504174
Hitler and Stalin were both Totalitarian, not Authoritarian, so I don't see the relevance.

Really? How does that work? I'm pretty sure Germany and USSR were no less authoritarian as they were totalitarian.

I see you are probably trying to distinguish the term totalitarianism as a "higher degree" of authoritatianism, or something, which I think is stupid, because there is no such distinction.

Totalitarinism, as in, unconditional subordination of individual to the state, is a key feature of every stable state: fascist, liberal, socialist, or whatever. A state which is not totalitarian is a failed state.
By Manuel
#1504185
But you were claiming the track record between communism and fascism showed that they were basically the same thing - and brought up Stalin and Hitler as proof of that.

I merely tried to show that not all fascist and communist regimes, in fact most do not, share similarities.
User avatar
By Quercus Robur
#1504188
hm meb not socialism which I think can be justified by expanded notions of what is good for individuals thereby diluting its groupishness. Not so sure about fascism either since it isn't an ideology as far as I can see, but I suppose it distrusts individual rights as nambi-pambi liberal ideas a bit like socialists and commies.

Communism is just another word for collectivism really :) that is definitely aiming at a community good and knocks down individualism with its radicalness and reduced notions of free will.
By Manuel
#1504191
Why don't you consider fascism an ideology?
User avatar
By jaakko
#1504195
NetsNJFan87 wrote:I disagree, political and economic freedom are different things. Chile was a brutal political dictatorship, but was economically free.

This separation of politics from economy is really something fantastic. It was the state apparatus itself that effectively carried out the coup on behalf of those in control of the economy. It was a political expression of the same class dictatorship that already existed with economy as its foundation. They already had both economic and political power, which can't be separated anyway. What changed was that the political power tore down its own parliamentarian facade and temporarily adopted an openly terroristic and openly dictatorial form. This would not have happened without the Allende government that threatened the economic foundation of the class dictatorship of the Chilean bourgeoisie and US imperialism. Had there not been such an alien democratic government (that is alien to state apparatus protecting the economic interests of the rich and democratic from the perspective of the economic interests of the poor), then that state power could've retained its "pluralistic" parliamentarian facade.

However the point I'm trying to get across is that political power can't exist without an economic foundation, and that dictatorship requires both.

I don't understand the question; in general or particular to this discussion.

You seemed to conclude "collectivist indifference" from a feature you find similar between fascism and communism - "state oriented dictatorship". Even if this was a common feature (which I don't accept), lumping them together (with the nominal "exception" of economics) on the basis of a shared feature is just arbitrary. To put it simple, there are no two things that don't have anything in common. You may list perceived or real common features between fascism and communism and I can do the same with fascism and, say, social-democracy or conservatism. At best this may accumulate data to be analysed and to be put into a context, but such doesn't constitute an analysis by itself.

Politically, I do think Communism and Fascism have been similar. While yes, economically they have differed, but I don't see any different between getting sent to a Fascist death camp or a communist gulag.


What do you think politics is? I think it's about the ways how people organise themselves in a society, and it's a high time for me to know if it's here where our disagreement boils down to. But if there's no fundamental disagreement here, then how do you exclude economy from the sphere of politics? Economy is definitely a component (I'd say the foundation or base) of society, not something "outside" or independent of it.

I think you're making a moralistic argument with the "death camp or gulag" thing, rather than proving a political similarity. It was not some abstract individual who was sent to the death camps or "gulags" but real people of very real groups. What was the difference in these two cases, if not political?

Besides, honestly I don't believe you wouldn't choose going to prison labour camp instead of a nazi death camp if those really were the only options available to you.

This is what I am evaluating, not Marxist vs. Fascist literature.


Yes I know that. What I'm asking you to do is to compare communist and fascist regimes by looking at how they function vis a vis the economic base of the society, because that's what determines the political content of the two.

You really think Stalin's paranoid Russia and Hitler's Germany were that different?


Again you include moral judgements like "paranoid". Yes the two were completely different and I bet you're not as ignorant about history as your question would imply. One was a capitalist state (without parliamentarianism) and the other a socialist state. The social conditions on which both regimes were formed were completely different, almost from "another era".
User avatar
By Quercus Robur
#1504227
Why don't you consider fascism an deology?
I have to say I don't know very much about it, but it strikes me as a lable of convenience for illiberalism.
User avatar
By Gletkin
#1504573
Meistro1 wrote:Fascism, Communism, Socialism - these isms are all just subsets of 'Collectivism' - the ideology that views people as part of groups instead of as individuals.

Agree or disagree?

Businesses aren't groups?

People can cut the political cake in all sorts of ways to cast dispersion on certain ideologies by making hackneyed comparisons based on just one or two aspects.

Now turning the knife:

Fascism, National Socialism, and capitalism have more in common with each other than socialism or communism based on their disbelief in egalitarianism and belief in competition in one form or another between people.

Up until the 1960s the western capitalist democracies also believed in White supremacy as the Fascists and Nazis did. They weren't as extreme but their views were essentially the same.

NetsNJFan87 wrote:You really think Stalin's paranoid Russia and Hitler's Germany were that different?

But I may be wrong; educate me.

Well for one thing Hitler was committed to the utter extermination of all Jews and Stalin wasn't.

It never ceases to amaze me how some Jews could belittle the differences between Stalin and Hitler. Under Stalin you have a chance at life. Under Hitler, you don't. Period.
User avatar
By pikachu
#1504579
Fascism, National Socialism, and capitalism have more in common with each other than socialism or communism based on their disbelief in egalitarianism and belief in competition in one form or another between people.

Liberals tend to believe in some weird sort of egalitarianism which only they understand. It's called "equality before the law" and sometimes also "equality of opportunity" or some bulshit like that.

Fascists and NS also pretend to believe in egalitrianism, y'know national unity and cooperation and all that stuff. Guess why it's called national socialism anyway? Again, it's the kind of egalitarianism which no one really understands except themselves, but I'm just pointing out that it's not that simple.

Although I do agree that liberals and fascists are closer to each other than communists and fascists, which is why liberals are typically placed in the middle.

Under Stalin you have a chance at life. Under Hitler, you don't. Period.

When your life is full of hardship, sometimes death is a better option. :| Just sayin...

BTW, Nets is a J oo? Jew alert!
User avatar
By Gletkin
#1504587
pikachu wrote:Fascists and NS also pretend to believe in egalitrianism, y'know national unity and cooperation and all that stuff.

National unity? Sure. International Solidarity for all Mankind as the left does? NO. "Coopertation"? Mmmmmmm as in "not laissez-faire capitalist, sure.
But they also believed in classes and hierarchy whereas the socialist left believe that eventually class will disappear.


pikachu wrote:Guess why it's called national socialism anyway?

Because Hitler was a fruitcake?
Who knows? Maybe he was a libertarian at one time and still believed that ANYTHING short of an absolute free market equaled "socialism".

pikachu wrote:When your life is full of hardship, sometimes death is a better option. Just sayin...

Not if you're a ranking apparatchik (and avoid piquing Stalin's paranoia).
By Meistro1
#1504736
Who knows? Maybe he was a libertarian at one time and still believed that ANYTHING short of an absolute free market equaled "socialism".


Or maybe he believed in state ownership of the means of production. The big difference between Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Germany was the former was national socialism and the latter was international socialism.
User avatar
By FallenRaptor
#1504750
Stalinism is the very opposite of international socialism.

EDIT: I think I read your post wrong, since it seems you are saying that Stalinism is national socialism and Fascism is international socialism. Either way, you couldn't be more wrong.
By Meistro1
#1504786
I wrote that incorrectly - hitlerism is national socialism, stalinism is international socialism.
User avatar
By jaakko
#1504787
Meistro1 wrote:Or maybe he believed in state ownership of the means of production

It doesn't make any difference. Read what Gletkin wrote.

The belief mentioned in your hypothesis doesn't exclude the possibility of believing that "anything short of an absolute free market equals socialism". This is libertarian ideology. It's also not so rare for libertarians to equate "state ownership of the means of production" with about any "state intervention".
User avatar
By FallenRaptor
#1504790
That makes some more sense, but it's still wrong since Stalin was a nationalist believed in building "Socialism In One Country". Also, Nazi Germany & Soviet Russia were never socialist, unless you're one of those conservative nutjobs that believe anything involving government is socialism.
User avatar
By pikachu
#1504807
Or maybe he believed in state ownership of the means of production.

I don't recall him believeing in that... Anyway according to what I know, state ownership does not imply socialism. Iran has plenty of state ownership - is Iran socialist? Many countries nationalize major industries during wartime to increase production - do they become socialist?

The DAP probably started out more like a third-way movement with genuine socialist tendencies, which died out by the time Hitler took over everything and became Chancellor.

Maybe he was a libertarian at one time and still believed that ANYTHING short of an absolute free market equaled "socialism".

And maybe because he wanted to appeal to the working class and present a challenge to the communists?
User avatar
By jaakko
#1504825
pikachu wrote:I don't recall him believeing in that

He "believed" in "state intervention" (who doesn't besides the libertarians, well that's another matter). In libertarian ideology, "state intervention" basically equals "state ownership". You should really look at Gletkin's joke hypothesis as one of Hitler as a libertarian turned inside-out, which doesn't ridicule Hitler but the libertarians that try to paint him as a "socialist".

https://twitter.com/SocialistFuture/status/1172795[…]

I could not believe when I saw that this morning […]

43% of my electricity is renewable. !00% of my e[…]

Election 2020

We are pretty late in the business cycle, so a re[…]